Was prog ever in style?
Richard Jay Baruch
Seems to me that when disco started to peak (around '75) was the same time
that Yes started to fall prey to the pressure of its influence with a more
commercial sound--
David Rheault
"Richard Jay Baruch" <rcke...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:pI4T7.28859$bs2.6...@news02.optonline.net...
>
> Seems to me that when disco started to peak (around '75) was the same time
> that Yes started to fall prey to the pressure of its influence with a more
> commercial sound--
And YES alienated a good chunk of their fans when they did this. Prog was in
vogue throughout the '70s and has enjoyed a resurgence in the 1990s. Do your
best to attend this gig:
http://www.nearfest.com/nearfest/
You won't be disappointed.
dcr
Loz
<drhe...@erols.com> , on a snipper monster safari, said :
It's interesting to note that Yes alienated many of their existing
fans when they came out with "Close to the Edge".
Loz {:-)>
NP: Yes - Nashville 2000
<... and still she won't STFU>
Richard Jay Baruch
--
Loz <loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:33pp1uood8fnhm9l4...@4ax.com...
That was because at the time Close to the Edge was by far the coldest and
most abstract rock work that still had commercial mainstream appeal that had
yet been introduced to the local record store, and, modernism like that
almost always alienates more people than do commercial mainstream sounds.
Personally, I didn't know too many people who left Yes at hearing CTTE. Most
who didn't like it were never into Yes to begin with. And, I needed to hear
it a second time to get over the brave new world sounds. One could compare
it to Gates of Delirium in that sense I suppose and then ask some of us
including myself why we could never get passed some of those modern sounds.
It comes down to limits, to balance, to how much you do it - how much you do
anything. The areas of expression Yes delved into in CTTE were not so
concreate, not so obvious. So in the sense of it being a very modern work it
is in another league from Gates altogether, which expresses war. I always
thought Yes was progressive so I never really understood what is progressive
about war. As for the rest of Relayer, "To be over" is not that modern, and
"Sound Chaser" is very modern but doesn't hang together as well nor is as
subtle as CTTE. It's not a matter of being modern as much as it is if you
are being modern, also being subtle which means alluding to things rather
than making blunt statements.
Loz
<rcke...@optonline.net> , on a snipper monster safari, said :
>Loz <loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:33pp1uood8fnhm9l4...@4ax.com...
>>
>> It's interesting to note that Yes alienated many of their existing
>> fans when they came out with "Close to the Edge".
>
>That was because at the time Close to the Edge was by far the coldest and
>most abstract rock work that still had commercial mainstream appeal that had
>yet been introduced to the local record store, and, modernism like that
>almost always alienates more people than do commercial mainstream sounds.
>Personally, I didn't know too many people who left Yes at hearing CTTE. Most
>who didn't like it were never into Yes to begin with. And, I needed to hear
>it a second time to get over the brave new world sounds. One could compare
>it to Gates of Delirium in that sense I suppose and then ask some of us
>including myself why we could never get passed some of those modern sounds.
>It comes down to limits, to balance, to how much you do it - how much you do
>anything. The areas of expression Yes delved into in CTTE were not so
>concreate, not so obvious. So in the sense of it being a very modern work it
>is in another league from Gates altogether, which expresses war. I always
>thought Yes was progressive so I never really understood what is progressive
>about war. As for the rest of Relayer, "To be over" is not that modern, and
>"Sound Chaser" is very modern but doesn't hang together as well nor is as
>subtle as CTTE. It's not a matter of being modern as much as it is if you
>are being modern, also being subtle which means alluding to things rather
>than making blunt statements.
I'm a little fuddled at the moment, so I am unsure I'm getting every
point you are making here.
For myself, I embraced CttE after the first two listenings, but
"Relayer" took much longer. It was only afterwards that that I worked
my way back through the catalogue. OTOH, a couple of people I know who
were with Yes at the start, my brother -in-law and Rusty (a former
AMYWarrior), viewed the developments represented by CttE with some
reservation, to say the least. Some elements of the music press at
that time also alluded to CttE being an unwanted departure from what
was expected of Yes. Alienation definitely took place at that time.
ISTR the quoted cause of this is most often the length of tracks,
rather than their sound or composition, although in the case of my
bro'-in-law, it was the fact he preferred Kaye to Wakeman on keys (not
necessarily a majority view, I realise).
The nearest I came to "alienation" I suppose was when I bought "Going
for the One" when it came out. Didn't like it then and it remains one
of my least favourite Yes albums.
Loz {:-)>
NP: Yes - Open Your Eyes
David Rheault
in
> >vogue throughout the '70s and has enjoyed a resurgence in the 1990s. Do
your
> >best to attend this gig:
> >
> >http://www.nearfest.com/nearfest/
> >
> >You won't be disappointed.
> >
> >
> >dcr
>
> It's interesting to note that Yes alienated many of their existing
> fans when they came out with "Close to the Edge".
There is a small chance that many of their fans were "aliens" to begin with.
;>
Seriously, are you one of those types who think rock died in 1959?
dcr
Loz
<drhe...@erols.com> , on a snipper monster safari, said :
>"Loz" <loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:33pp1uood8fnhm9l4...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >And YES alienated a good chunk of their fans when they did this. Prog was
>in
>> >vogue throughout the '70s and has enjoyed a resurgence in the 1990s. Do
>your
>> >best to attend this gig:
>> >
>> >http://www.nearfest.com/nearfest/
>> >
>> >You won't be disappointed.
>> >
>> >dcr
>>
>> It's interesting to note that Yes alienated many of their existing
>> fans when they came out with "Close to the Edge".
>
>There is a small chance that many of their fans were "aliens" to begin with.
>;>
Haven't yet seen any evidence to contradict what you say!
>Seriously, are you one of those types who think rock died in 1959?
No. For a fuller explanation of what I was getting at, please see my
response to Richard elsewhere in this thread.
To expand further, Yes seems to have "alienated" many fans at every
turn. OTOH, I can't really explain why I have found so much to please
me in every album they've released (although certain individual tracks
leave me cold). I don't consider myself fanboyish in any respect, so
far as Yes is concerned anyway.
Loz {:-)>
NP: Yes - Magnification
David Rheault
> >>
> >> It's interesting to note that Yes alienated many of their existing
> >> fans when they came out with "Close to the Edge".
> >
> >There is a small chance that many of their fans were "aliens" to begin
with.
> Haven't yet seen any evidence to contradict what you say!
LOL.
> >Seriously, are you one of those types who think rock died in 1959?
>
> No. For a fuller explanation of what I was getting at, please see my
> response to Richard elsewhere in this thread.
>
> To expand further, Yes seems to have "alienated" many fans at every
> turn.
The Ever Popular "Unstable Lineup" Effect. That's my theory.
>OTOH, I can't really explain why I have found so much to please
> me in every album they've released (although certain individual tracks
> leave me cold).
I've been a YES fan these long years, except for the Dark Periods. These
lastest roughly from 1984-1989, and then again from 1992-1996.
> I don't consider myself fanboyish in any respect, so
> far as Yes is concerned anyway.
>
Tell it like it is then. You heard that on A.M.Y.
dcr
Theus
news:pI4T7.28859$bs2.6...@news02.optonline.net...
>
> that Yes started to fall prey to the pressure of its influence with a more
> commercial sound--
>
the type of bands that the record companies thought Yes should be emulating.
--
Michael E.J. Smith
From their experience or from the recorded experience of others (history),
men learn only what their passions and their metaphysical prejudices allow
them to learn.
Aldous Huxley
JVO33
read, it seems that Yes and the other "prog" groups of the 70's were the
"alternative" bands of their era. You had The Carpenters, John Denver, Elton
John & Paul McCartney having numerous hit singles and considered as the "pop"
stars.
Yes, ELP & Pink Floyd were the top Prog bands of the era..filling stadiums and
selling a bunch of albums and getting plenty of airplay on FM stations. Later
on in the 70's, not only you had Disco, but the Punk sound that critics just
LOVED! (The Clash, Ramones, Patty Smith and the infamously overrated Sex
Pistols)
But when did Yes really change their sound in the 70's? Was CTTE that much of
a leap from Fragile? I don't really hear it. CTTE is still their highest
charting album in the US at #3 TFTO hit #1 in the UK... GFTO also hit #1 in
the UK... GFTO certainly sounds like a "Classic Yes" album... just a little
more streamlined and concise. I think they took it as far as it could possibly
go with TFTO...four 20 minute conceptual "suites" Great album, just a lot to
digest and being considered of the Rock N' Roll genre..Yes took hits from
hipper than thou "rock critics". Tormato sounds like a Yes album....usual
Anderson lyrics... Wakeman's overuse on the Birotron & Polymoog gives the album
an even more dated sound though.
Prog probably was in style dating back from the late 60's to 74 or so....but
like any genre of music, something new comes around and overtakes it for one
reason or another.
Begentle
>that Yes started to fall prey to the pressure of its influence with a more
>commercial sound--
>
How are Going for the One and Tormato "a more commercial sound"? I think the
reality is the guys peaked in terms of their ability to stretch, be progressive
with Relayer.
Jim
John T/CountV
this to say:
> I always thought Yes was progressive so I never really understood what is
> progressive about war.
Worth trawling through for that gem alone.
Sig file, I believe.
--
CountV/John T
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts
The alt.music.yes shop: http://www.cafepress.com/amystore
John T/CountV
> The Clash, Ramones, Patty Smith and the infamously overrated Sex
> Pistols
The latter was a whole lot less overrated than the first three.
--
CountV/John T
"I always thought Yes was progressive so I never really understood what is
progressive about war." - Richard Jay Baruch on a.m.y
Richard Jay Baruch
--
John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
news:B843322F.343CB%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
> On 01-12-16 20.58, Richard Jay Baruch <rcke...@optonline.net> thought of
> this to say:
>
> > I always thought Yes was progressive so I never really understood what
is
> > progressive about war.
>
> Worth trawling through for that gem alone.
>
> Sig file, I believe.
No, not really. Sig file would be a pro war statement you imbecile.
Theus
news:20011216230100...@mb-fi.aol.com...
anything since TYA and Fragile period. I would say this was Yes making a
compromise with the record company. Release some straight forward, punchier
songs that didn't require much of an attention span. The same goes for
Tormato.
Theus
> On 01-12-17 04.26, JVO33 <jv...@aol.com> thought of this to say:
>
> > The Clash, Ramones, Patty Smith and the infamously overrated Sex
> > Pistols
>
> The latter was a whole lot less overrated than the first three.
>
prefered, especially London Calling.
Todd Mitchell
>"John T/CountV" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
>news:B84332F3.343CC%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
>> On 01-12-17 04.26, JVO33 <jv...@aol.com> thought of this to say:
>>
>> > The Clash, Ramones, Patty Smith and the infamously overrated Sex
>> > Pistols
>>
>> The latter was a whole lot less overrated than the first three.
>>
> I think the Sex Pistols are way overrated. The Clash was a punk band I
>prefered, especially London Calling.
And they were a *real* band (as were the Ramones and Talking Heads) as opposed
to the Pistols, who were a manufactured boy band, when you get right down to
it.
Todd
"Pffft! Aaacck! Pfffft! Heeeehhhh! Aaaaacck!" Jack Mitchell (three week old
son)
John T/CountV
this to say:
>
>
> --
>
> John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
> news:B843322F.343CB%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
>> On 01-12-16 20.58, Richard Jay Baruch <rcke...@optonline.net> thought of
>> this to say:
>>
>>> I always thought Yes was progressive so I never really understood what is
>>> progressive about war.
>>
>> Worth trawling through for that gem alone.
>>
>> Sig file, I believe.
>
> No, not really. Sig file would be a pro war statement you imbecile.
Sig file material would be a hilarious statement I copy. (see how you parse
that and then see why it looks like you're using 'imbecile' as a verb up
there)
Just the thought that someone is sitting and *seriously* going "This song is
about war. That's not a very progressive thing for a song to be about" is
enough to make all warm and toasty inside.
--
CountV/John T
"I always thought Yes was progressive so I never really understood what is
progressive about war." - Richard Jay Baruch on a.m.y
John T/CountV
say:
> "Theus" mejs...@sympatico.ca writes:
>
>> "John T/CountV" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
>> news:B84332F3.343CC%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
>>> On 01-12-17 04.26, JVO33 <jv...@aol.com> thought of this to say:
>>>
>>>> The Clash, Ramones, Patty Smith and the infamously overrated Sex
>>>> Pistols
>>>
>>> The latter was a whole lot less overrated than the first three.
>>>
>> I think the Sex Pistols are way overrated. The Clash was a punk band I
>> prefered, especially London Calling.
>
> And they were a *real* band (as were the Ramones and Talking Heads) as opposed
> to the Pistols, who were a manufactured boy band, when you get right down to
> it.
Which is, of course, exactly what was good about them - authenticity is
*way* overrated and what was what made The Clash so pathetic. The Pistols
were an act, a freak show, an art project - much more interesting on every
level.
Also, the Ramones and the Talking Heads were Punk only tangentially, really.
InElegy
<countRE...@m-ideas.com> sharpened a crayon and wrote:
>On 01-12-17 14.49, Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.comatose> thought of this to
>say:
>
>> "Theus" mejs...@sympatico.ca writes:
>>
>>> "John T/CountV" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
>>> news:B84332F3.343CC%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
>>>> On 01-12-17 04.26, JVO33 <jv...@aol.com> thought of this to say:
>>>>
>>>>> The Clash, Ramones, Patty Smith and the infamously overrated Sex
>>>>> Pistols
>>>>
>>>> The latter was a whole lot less overrated than the first three.
>>>>
>>> I think the Sex Pistols are way overrated. The Clash was a punk band I
>>> prefered, especially London Calling.
>>
>> And they were a *real* band (as were the Ramones and Talking Heads) as opposed
>> to the Pistols, who were a manufactured boy band, when you get right down to
>> it.
>
>Which is, of course, exactly what was good about them - authenticity is
>*way* overrated and what was what made The Clash so pathetic.
The Clash and The Pistols were both great for different reasons, but
_London Calling_ was *not* a punk album, nor was any Clash album
thereafter, IMO. I think of the Clash as a rock band which played
around with different styles. "Sandinista" was a great album, but i
always thought it was a funny record to hear after reading interviews
Strummer gave at the time filled where he'd name check Yes as an
example of rock self-indulgence and everything that's wrong with
music, and then his band releases a three-album set filled with
Topographic-sized excesses, experiments and padding!
> The Pistols
>were an act, a freak show, an art project
John Lydon would spit something on you for saying that . . . and then
probably agree with the statement.
*art*
>- much more interesting on every
>level.
Agreed.
><snip> the Talking Heads were Punk only tangentially, really.
Back then, it seemed like any band with short haircuts was dubbed a
punk band. I never thought of the 'Heads as punk. Art college geeks
with guitars, yes, but never close to punk.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
``You know how the Beatles broke off,
they all did their solo projects and
they came back together and they were even stronger.''
-- the wisdom of Kelly Rowland of Destiny's Child
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011205/en/music-destiny.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Rheault
"Todd Mitchell" <nous...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20011217084906...@mb-fq.aol.com...
> >>
> > I think the Sex Pistols are way overrated. The Clash was a punk band
I
> >prefered, especially London Calling.
>
> And they were a *real* band (as were the Ramones and Talking Heads) as
opposed
> to the Pistols, who were a manufactured boy band, when you get right down
to
> it.
Quite right Todd. Malcolm McLauren starred in his role as master puppeteer.
John is confusing authenticity and talent.
dcr
Chris Hosford
Gimmie The Jam over any of the above.
"Take a circle, caress it, and it will become vicious."-Eugene Ionesco
Theus
news:20011217084906...@mb-fq.aol.com...
>
> >"John T/CountV" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
> >news:B84332F3.343CC%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
> >> On 01-12-17 04.26, JVO33 <jv...@aol.com> thought of this to say:
> >>
> >> > The Clash, Ramones, Patty Smith and the infamously overrated Sex
> >> > Pistols
> >>
> >> The latter was a whole lot less overrated than the first three.
> >>
> > I think the Sex Pistols are way overrated. The Clash was a punk band
I
> >prefered, especially London Calling.
>
> And they were a *real* band (as were the Ramones and Talking Heads) as
opposed
> to the Pistols, who were a manufactured boy band, when you get right down
to
> it.
True enough. A few of them even had talent.
Theus
> On 01-12-17 14.49, Todd Mitchell <nous...@aol.comatose> thought of this
to
> say:
>
> > "Theus" mejs...@sympatico.ca writes:
> >
> >> "John T/CountV" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
> >> news:B84332F3.343CC%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
> >>> On 01-12-17 04.26, JVO33 <jv...@aol.com> thought of this to say:
> >>>
> >>>> The Clash, Ramones, Patty Smith and the infamously overrated Sex
> >>>> Pistols
> >>>
> >>> The latter was a whole lot less overrated than the first three.
> >>>
> >> I think the Sex Pistols are way overrated. The Clash was a punk band I
> >> prefered, especially London Calling.
> >
> > And they were a *real* band (as were the Ramones and Talking Heads) as
opposed
> > to the Pistols, who were a manufactured boy band, when you get right
down to
> > it.
>
> Which is, of course, exactly what was good about them - authenticity is
> *way* overrated and what was what made The Clash so pathetic. The Pistols
> were an act, a freak show, an art project - much more interesting on every
> level.
>
really interesting about them was how fast a certain Sid Vicious headed his
way to self destruction.
Richard Jay Baruch
--
John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
news:B843DF17.34414%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
> On 01-12-17 13.16, Richard Jay Baruch <rcke...@optonline.net> thought of
> this to say:
>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
> > news:B843322F.343CB%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
> >> On 01-12-16 20.58, Richard Jay Baruch <rcke...@optonline.net> thought
of
> >> this to say:
> >>
> >>> I always thought Yes was progressive so I never really understood what
is
> >>> progressive about war.
> >>
> >> Worth trawling through for that gem alone.
> >>
> >> Sig file, I believe.
> >
> > No, not really. Sig file would be a pro war statement you imbecile.
>
> Sig file material would be a hilarious statement I copy. (see how you
parse
> that and then see why it looks like you're using 'imbecile' as a verb up
> there)
What is this a fucking English lesson?
> Just the thought that someone is sitting and *seriously* going "This song
is
> about war. That's not a very progressive thing for a song to be about" is
> enough to make all warm and toasty inside.
Sig File? Toasty inside? Might you be trying to tell me something?
You*are*hilarious.
Steven Gross
"David Rheault" <drhe...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9vljfd$s5k$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "Todd Mitchell" <nous...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
> news:20011217084906...@mb-fq.aol.com...
> > >>
> > > I think the Sex Pistols are way overrated. The Clash was a punk
band
> I
> > >prefered, especially London Calling.
> >
> > And they were a *real* band (as were the Ramones and Talking Heads) as
> opposed
> > to the Pistols, who were a manufactured boy band, when you get right
down
> to
> > it.
>
Talking Heads over any of the bands mentioned here. The Heads are certainly
not a punk band to my ears. They don't even belong in this thread. Very
early Joe Jackson had a slight punk feel to it. I've always loved him.
He's made some very sophisticated music over the years.
NP Yes KTA 2
JVO33
thanks to Malcolm McLaren...bunch of wankers
John T/CountV
to say:
>> Todd Mitchell" <nous...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
>> news:20011217084906...@mb-fq.aol.com...
>>>>>
>>>> I think the Sex Pistols are way overrated. The Clash was a punk band
>> I
>>>> prefered, especially London Calling.
>>>
>>> And they were a *real* band (as were the Ramones and Talking Heads) as
>> opposed
>>> to the Pistols, who were a manufactured boy band, when you get right down
>> to
>>> it.
>>
>> Quite right Todd. Malcolm McLauren starred in his role as master puppeteer.
>> John is confusing authenticity and talent.
>
> Gimmie The Jam over any of the above.
The Jam were a great Pop band indeed. Not really in the same field, I would
say.
John T/CountV
this to say:
> John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
> news:B843DF17.34414%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
>> On 01-12-17 13.16, Richard Jay Baruch <rcke...@optonline.net> thought of
>> this to say:
>>> No, not really. Sig file would be a pro war statement you imbecile.
>>
>> Sig file material would be a hilarious statement I copy. (see how you parse
>> that and then see why it looks like you're using 'imbecile' as a verb up
>> there)
>
> What is this a fucking English lesson?
Just trying to point out that with some minor punctuation in place, I might
not have had to read your line three times to parse it. If you don't care
about that, then so be it.
>
>> Just the thought that someone is sitting and *seriously* going "This song is
>> about war. That's not a very progressive thing for a song to be about" is
>> enough to make all warm and toasty inside.
>
> Sig File? Toasty inside? Might you be trying to tell me something?
Yes I am. I am telling you that equating the progressiveness of music with
the subject matter of its lyrics is incredibly funny because it's such a
weird angle to be coming from.
You seem to think that GoD is pro-war, which of course it isn't. Neither is
the book that inspired it. Thus, your statement is not unlike saying that
Don't Kill the Whale is bad because it's about killing whales.
Even so, quality (and/or progressiveness - they don't necessarily match up)
is fairly independent of subject matter, if not entirely divorced from it.
Great art has been made about bad things (and vice versa, of course).
Then again, maybe I misread you, punctuation being what it is.
> You*are*hilarious.
Ah - the old "I know you are, but what am I". That one's a little tired,
isn't it?
David Rheault
> >>>>>
> >>>> I think the Sex Pistols are way overrated. The Clash was a punk band
> >> I
> >>>> prefered, especially London Calling.
> >>>
> >>> And they were a *real* band (as were the Ramones and Talking Heads) as
> >> opposed
> >>> to the Pistols, who were a manufactured boy band, when you get right
down
> >> to
> >>> it.
> >>
> >> Quite right Todd. Malcolm McLauren starred in his role as master
puppeteer.
> >> John is confusing authenticity and talent.
> >
> > Gimmie The Jam over any of the above.
>
> The Jam were a great Pop band indeed. Not really in the same field, I
would
> say.
Look, the Pistols did get the publicity and I recognize them for what they
were, but I always preferred the Clash.
dcr
David Rheault
"Steven Gross" <dian...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:%PyT7.170381$WW.10670247@bgtnsc05-
> >
> ....Sex Pistols were the most influential. However musically I'd take
> Talking Heads over any of the bands mentioned here. The Heads are
certainly
> not a punk band to my ears. They don't even belong in this thread.
Yeah, I'd call them "New Wave." A kind of marriage of the simplicity of
punk (to a degree) with the arti-ness of prog/rock.
>Very
> early Joe Jackson had a slight punk feel to it. I've always loved him.
> He's made some very sophisticated music over the years.
How was his symphonic album?
> NP Yes KTA 2
Cool.
dcr
Chris Hosford
>>
>> The Jam were a great Pop band indeed. Not really in the same field, I
>would
>> say.
>
>Look, the Pistols did get the publicity and I recognize them for what they
>were, but I always preferred the Clash.
My contention is simply that both the Sex Pistols and The Clash are horribly
overrated while The Jam is criminally underrated, especially in the US. The
Pistols were manufactured, and only made one album anyway. The Clash undercut
a lot of their musical ability by trying to make hamfisted sociopolitical
statements. So much of The Clash's music sounds dated now. Meanwhile, Paul
Weller wrote friggin' songs. He's the one who delivered the goods. I put "The
Butterfly Collector" on a CD I burned for a friend recently and she loved it
and couldn't believe that it was from the 70s.
"We stare at our screens all our lives. What a waste of eyes." Steve Hogarth
David Rheault
"Chris Hosford" <uncle...@aol.com.TARDIS> wrote in message
news:20011218125722...@mb-mk.aol.com...
> >> > Gimmie The Jam over any of the above.
> >>
> >> The Jam were a great Pop band indeed. Not really in the same field, I
> >would
> >> say.
> >
> >Look, the Pistols did get the publicity and I recognize them for what
they
> >were, but I always preferred the Clash.
>
> My contention is simply that both the Sex Pistols and The Clash are
horribly
> overrated while The Jam is criminally underrated, especially in the US.
I'm pretty much proof of what you say. I can't think of one single song by
the Jam that I recall.
dcr
Richard Jay Baruch
--
John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
news:B844EE4A.344F1%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
Well I didn't invent it. It's called progam music.
>
> You seem to think that GoD is pro-war, which of course it isn't.
Hold it right there. I never used those exact words. I said Gates is *about*
war. It is also obviously a protest of war, but it depicts war a little bit
too graphically then is really necessary, unless you actually enjoy that
aspect of reality. Most of us do not.
Neither is
> the book that inspired it. Thus, your statement is not unlike saying that
> Don't Kill the Whale is bad because it's about killing whales.
>
> Even so, quality (and/or progressiveness - they don't necessarily match
up)
> is fairly independent of subject matter, if not entirely divorced from it.
> Great art has been made about bad things (and vice versa, of course).
For me, progressive music means music that is a catalyst for the improvement
of the human condition.
Then again, maybe I misread you, punctuation being what it is.
>
> > You*are*hilarious.
>
> Ah - the old "I know you are, but what am I". That one's a little tired,
> isn't it?
Thanks for pointing that out too, Dr. Lechter.
>
> --
John T/CountV
this to say:
>> Yes I am. I am telling you that equating the progressiveness of music with
>> the subject matter of its lyrics is incredibly funny because it's such a
>> weird angle to be coming from.
>
> Well I didn't invent it. It's called progam music.
Huh?
Program music in no way says anything about content in any way increasing or
hindering progressiveness (and we'll get to the three possible definitions
of that in a moment). It is generally taken to mean instrumental music
written with a specific story or set of descriptions in mind, rather than
leaving that entirely up to the listener. By extending the definition, any
song with a discernible lyric *could* be seen as program music, but that's
really not how the term is ever used.
I don't understand what you're trying to say when you use that term here.
>>
>> You seem to think that GoD is pro-war, which of course it isn't.
>
> Hold it right there. I never used those exact words.
See, that's what the 'seem' means.
> I said Gates is *about* war. It is also obviously a protest of war, but it
> depicts war a little bit too graphically then is really necessary, unless you
> actually enjoy that aspect of reality. Most of us do not.
Even accepting your contention that it portrays war graphically, that still
has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's progressive or not. I repeat:
nothing.
>> Even so, quality (and/or progressiveness - they don't necessarily match up)
>> is fairly independent of subject matter, if not entirely divorced from it.
>> Great art has been made about bad things (and vice versa, of course).
>
> For me, progressive music means music that is a catalyst for the improvement
> of the human condition.
Condition for communication: if you wish to be understood, you cannot make
up your own definitions of words and expressions from whole cloth (ah, now
this might explain the 'program music' above).
'Progressive' can really only be one of three things when talking about
music:
1. Ground breaking, avant garde, developing the form.
2. Like Progressive Rock, a fairly clear if broad genre loosely defined in
sound, structure and instrumentation by bands such as Yes, ELP, Genesis
et.al. Genre name set when those bands were in compliance with 1 - later
applied to bands and music inspired by that period rather then genuinely
progressing,
3. Music that progresses structurally, i.e. that shows considerable
development within the piece, with little exact reiteration (even if themes
and ideas can reoccur, they often do so in new contexts or slightly
changed).
Most confusion arises when people think that the genre mentioned in 2 should
be synonymous with the development mentioned in 1. Making up your own use
for the word only adds to the confusion.
Your definition is so highly subjective as to be utterly useless in any form
of discourse except as a variation on 'great'. 'Great' is understood by most
people to be entirely subjective, unlike expressions like 'hard rocking',
'repetitive', 'quietly introspective' or 'fast and furious', all of which
certainly have a large measure of subjectivity but can still be said to be
*somewhat* objective. Progressive is one of the latter, whichever one of the
three common usages you subscribe to. Just like we can say with almost
empirical certainty that 'Spoonman' rocks harder than 'Scarborough Fair' we
can say that 'Close to the Edge' is more progressive than 'Louie Louie'.
So then: by letting the subject matter (or possibly, the *handling* of the
subject matter) be at least part of the criterion for whether a piece of
music is progressive or not you're completely missing the point of how the
word is used. It does not affect how groundbreaking it is on a musical
level, does precious little to change how it fits in as Progressive Rock
(although I'll admit that hearing Morrissey lyrics in a Flower Kings tune
would be jarring) and does not do much to change the ebb and flow of the
piece.
Besides, even using your definition (and my ears) Gates is the most
progressive piece of music ever made. Few works of art leave me as
breathless, stunned and - yes - delirious as that one. Goofy, blissful smile
guaranteed each time.
Steven Gross
NP Laurie Anderson- Life on a String
Chris Jemmett
"Richard Jay Baruch" <rcke...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:zURT7.57099$bs2.13...@news02.optonline.net...
> Thanks for pointing that out too, Dr. Lechter.
You seem a bit testy, what is the problem?
Paul Goodwin
"Chris Jemmett" <ccjemmett@.idirect.com> wrote in message
news:p5YT7.10312$xB4.1...@brie.direct.ca...
He's debating with the Count and losing miserably.
--
Paul
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.
- Hector Louis Berlioz
John T/CountV
this to say:
> "Chris Jemmett" <ccjemmett@.idirect.com> wrote in message
> news:p5YT7.10312$xB4.1...@brie.direct.ca...
>>
>> "Richard Jay Baruch" <rcke...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:zURT7.57099$bs2.13...@news02.optonline.net...
>>
>>> Thanks for pointing that out too, Dr. Lechter.
>>
>> You seem a bit testy, what is the problem?
>
> He's debating with the Count and losing miserably.
I don't know that 'losing' is the right word. I'm not trying to pound him
into the ground, just point out how he uses words in a funny way.
Richard Jay Baruch
--
I love YOU man!
John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
news:B845CA96.34636%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
> On 01-12-19 02.17, Richard Jay Baruch <rcke...@optonline.net> thought of
> this to say:
>
> >> Yes I am. I am telling you that equating the progressiveness of music
with
> >> the subject matter of its lyrics is incredibly funny because it's such
a
> >> weird angle to be coming from.
> >
> > Well I didn't invent it. It's called progam music.
>
> Huh?
>
> Program music in no way says anything about content in any way increasing
or
> hindering progressiveness (and we'll get to the three possible definitions
> of that in a moment). It is generally taken to mean instrumental music
> written with a specific story or set of descriptions in mind, rather than
> leaving that entirely up to the listener. By extending the definition, any
> song with a discernible lyric *could* be seen as program music, but that's
> really not how the term is ever used.
>
> I don't understand what you're trying to say when you use that term here.
There are a variety of techniques employed in Gates of Delirium. Some of
Gates does in fact use programatic instrumental material. For the space that
it would take to detail technique, the music would be best served by
listening to it.
> >> You seem to think that GoD is pro-war, which of course it isn't.
> >
> > Hold it right there. I never used those exact words.
>
> See, that's what the 'seem' means.
>
> > I said Gates is *about* war. It is also obviously a protest of war, but
it
> > depicts war a little bit too graphically then is really necessary,
unless you
> > actually enjoy that aspect of reality. Most of us do not.
>
> Even accepting your contention that it portrays war graphically, that
still
> has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's progressive or not. I
repeat:
> nothing.
I'm sorry you can't see this. The music and lyrics simply complement
eachother.
These definitions of progressive music are not mine unless you were to break
my definition down into tiny little pieces. I don't feel the necessity to
analyze quite so much, or
make some sort of debate out of this, nor do I feel the need to prove
anything to anyone. I was simply stating my opinion about Gates of Delirium
with the desire to share my views and feelings of others. That you
originally offerred no intelligent discourse and chose to ridicule what I
had written:
> I always thought Yes was progressive so I never really understood what is
> progressive about war.
Worth trawling through for that gem alone.
Sig file, I believe.
is what doen't bode well with me. Saying "sig file" without offerring any
explanation is not, how shall I put it, very gentlemanly. So, do not assume
that I would overlook the issue of larger importance here, respect. You
respect me and I will do the same. If you were a gentlemen you would have
approached me or someone else with a complete thought. I'm not trying to
stultify *free* thought, but within discourse, it needs to take
reponsibility of its consequences. I simply felt that I had to point out the
relevence of the broader use of the word progressive - that of the
improvment of the human condition, because you weren't making the leap in
thought that only requires a little human understanding. Don't try so hard
and you will understand me. Condider this: If common sense were so common it
wouldn't be so highly valued.
>
> Your definition is so highly subjective as to be utterly useless in any
form
> of discourse except as a variation on 'great'. 'Great' is understood by
most
> people to be entirely subjective, unlike expressions like 'hard rocking',
> 'repetitive', 'quietly introspective' or 'fast and furious', all of which
> certainly have a large measure of subjectivity but can still be said to be
> *somewhat* objective. Progressive is one of the latter, whichever one of
the
> three common usages you subscribe to. Just like we can say with almost
> empirical certainty that 'Spoonman' rocks harder than 'Scarborough Fair'
we
> can say that 'Close to the Edge' is more progressive than 'Louie Louie'.
I hate that song - "Louie Louie".
>
> So then: by letting the subject matter (or possibly, the *handling* of the
> subject matter) be at least part of the criterion for whether a piece of
> music is progressive or not you're completely missing the point of how the
> word is used. It does not affect how groundbreaking it is on a musical
> level, does precious little to change how it fits in as Progressive Rock
> (although I'll admit that hearing Morrissey lyrics in a Flower Kings tune
> would be jarring) and does not do much to change the ebb and flow of the
> piece.
>
> Besides, even using your definition (and my ears) Gates is the most
> progressive piece of music ever made. Few works of art leave me as
> breathless, stunned and - yes - delirious as that one. Goofy, blissful
smile
> guaranteed each time.
That's what really counts.
David Rheault
> > >Very
> > > early Joe Jackson had a slight punk feel to it. I've always loved
him.
> > > He's made some very sophisticated music over the years.
> >
> > How was his symphonic album?
> >
orchestra.
How did it get the "symphonic" designation then?
dcr
Captain Beyond
I'd probably add Genesis in there too IMHO.
FVD.
_________________________________
"Moonlight night after moonlight night,
Side by side they will see us ride,
But if they cared to look then they will see,
It's our return to fantasy..."
- David Byron
"JVO33" <jv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011216222614...@mb-fl.aol.com...
> I may not have been around during the early days of Yes (I'm 30) but from
I've
> read, it seems that Yes and the other "prog" groups of the 70's were the
> "alternative" bands of their era. You had The Carpenters, John Denver,
Elton
> John & Paul McCartney having numerous hit singles and considered as the
"pop"
> stars.
>
> Yes, ELP & Pink Floyd were the top Prog bands of the era..filling stadiums
and
> selling a bunch of albums and getting plenty of airplay on FM stations.
Later
> on in the 70's, not only you had Disco, but the Punk sound that critics
just
> LOVED! (The Clash, Ramones, Patty Smith and the infamously overrated Sex
> Pistols)
>
> But when did Yes really change their sound in the 70's? Was CTTE that
much of
> a leap from Fragile? I don't really hear it. CTTE is still their highest
> charting album in the US at #3 TFTO hit #1 in the UK... GFTO also hit #1
in
> the UK... GFTO certainly sounds like a "Classic Yes" album... just a
little
> more streamlined and concise. I think they took it as far as it could
possibly
> go with TFTO...four 20 minute conceptual "suites" Great album, just a lot
to
> digest and being considered of the Rock N' Roll genre..Yes took hits from
> hipper than thou "rock critics". Tormato sounds like a Yes album....usual
> Anderson lyrics... Wakeman's overuse on the Birotron & Polymoog gives the
album
> an even more dated sound though.
>
> Prog probably was in style dating back from the late 60's to 74 or
so....but
> like any genre of music, something new comes around and overtakes it for
one
> reason or another.
>
Steven Sullivan
:>Yes, ELP & Pink Floyd were the top Prog bands of the era.
: I'd probably add Genesis in there too IMHO.
Except Genesis weren't hugely popular, the way the other three were, until
the 1980s.
--
-S.
Because I hate you. -- Mr. Tinkles
Todd Mitchell
>>> > Gimmie The Jam over any of the above.
>>>
>>> The Jam were a great Pop band indeed. Not really in the same field, I
>>would
>>> say.
>>
>>Look, the Pistols did get the publicity and I recognize them for what they
>>were, but I always preferred the Clash.
>
>My contention is simply that both the Sex Pistols and The Clash are horribly
>overrated while The Jam is criminally underrated, especially in the US.
Yet wasn't the Style Council more well-received in the States? IIRC the Council
was formed to make more inroads into the U.S. that the Jam didn't make,
according to Weller, and many thought they sucked in comparison. "Kick out the
Style, bring back the Jam" as Roland Orzabal (who btw is also "criminally
underrated") of Tears for Fears once wrote.
Todd
"You're Hot!" student evaluation
Theus
news:Ru7U7.226$k6....@grover.nit.gwu.edu...
> Captain Beyond <purpl...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> :>Yes, ELP & Pink Floyd were the top Prog bands of the era.
>
> : I'd probably add Genesis in there too IMHO.
>
> Except Genesis weren't hugely popular, the way the other three were, until
> the 1980s.
>
Probably one of the only prog bands where they clearly benefited from a more
commercial sound.
Theus
> uncle...@aol.com.TARDIS (Chris Hosford) writes:
Roland Orzabal (who btw is also "criminally
> underrated") of Tears for Fears once wrote.
>
possibly wrote some of the better songs in the New Wave genre.
David Forbus
groups of the late '60s and early '70s. The Who and others did "Rock Operas"
and even the Rolling Stones experimented with using an orchestra to do
songs with classical music overtones. Most were crude attempts to do "serious
music" in one form or the other. Of course, only groups like YES, ELP, Genesis
et al actually took this musical trend seriously and actually developed true
cohesive musical styles. Prog is a sub-genera of rock music. One that has not
been successful enough to merit it's own category in most musical stores, but
successful and influential enough to still be made.
All true Punk music is crap.
The Talking Heads, the Cars and some other groups were never punk,
just labeled that way by some to sell more records.
JVO33 wrote:
> I may not have been around during the early days of Yes (I'm 30) but from I've
> read, it seems that Yes and the other "prog" groups of the 70's were the
> "alternative" bands of their era. You had The Carpenters, John Denver, Elton
> John & Paul McCartney having numerous hit singles and considered as the "pop"
> stars.
>
> Yes, ELP & Pink Floyd were the top Prog bands of the era..filling stadiums and
> selling a bunch of albums and getting plenty of airplay on FM stations. Later
> on in the 70's, not only you had Disco, but the Punk sound that critics just
> LOVED! (The Clash, Ramones, Patty Smith and the infamously overrated Sex
> Pistols)
>
> Prog probably was in style dating back from the late 60's to 74 or so....but
> like any genre of music, something new comes around and overtakes it for one
> reason or another.
--
_________________________________________________
ARARAT Productions for...@ev1.net
3D computer animation / video & audio production
http://www.ararat-productions.com/
John T/CountV
this to say:
> These definitions of progressive music are not mine
OK, Rich. Next time you use a word in a way that is unique to you, could you
somehow indicate it, maybe with a [RJB] or something to let the reader know
that he should not read it the way it is commonly used?
John T/CountV
say:
> "Steven Gross" <dian...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
Will Power most certainly has an orchestra on it, so I don't know what album
Steven is talking about. It's patchy - I really like the opener No Pasaran
which for some reason reminds me of a less Glass-copyist Andrew Poppy, but
the rest I can live without.
It has one of my favorite from-the-recording photos of all time, though.
Jackson sitting on the conductor's chair in an empty studio filled with
music stands, microphones and chairs, head in hand as if asking himself how
in the hell he got involved with such an undertaking.
I also remember that he had written parts of electric guitar but couldn't
find a single guitarist in NYC that could nail the parts to his exacting
standards.
John T/CountV
> All true Punk music is crap.
Which was kind of the point. The thing is, just like Prog its rallying cry
was "Anything goes!" even if the ways to *do* this 'anything' was markedly
different they were both revolts against a narrow-minded and unadventurous
mind set.
Unfortunately, neither of them managed to do more than mildly wound the
still-staggering carcass of Rock N Roll.
Steven Sullivan
: On 01-12-20 02.21, David Forbus <for...@ev1.net> thought of this to say:
:> All true Punk music is crap.
: Which was kind of the point. The thing is, just like Prog its rallying cry
: was "Anything goes!" even if the ways to *do* this 'anything' was markedly
: different they were both revolts against a narrow-minded and unadventurous
: mind set.
What is 'true punk music'?
Steven Gross
> CountV/John T
> "I always thought Yes was progressive so I never really understood what is
> progressive about war." - Richard Jay Baruch on a.m.y
> The alt.music.yes shop: >
....After reading this thread and finally your new sig, I can't stop
laughing. I'm still laughing reading it again.
Richard Jay Baruch
--
I love YOU man!
John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
news:B84628B4.34674%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
> On 01-12-19 10.01, Paul Goodwin <pgoodwin2N...@cogeco.ca> thought
of
> this to say:
>
> > "Chris Jemmett" <ccjemmett@.idirect.com> wrote in message
> > news:p5YT7.10312$xB4.1...@brie.direct.ca...
> >>
> >> "Richard Jay Baruch" <rcke...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >> news:zURT7.57099$bs2.13...@news02.optonline.net...
> >>
> >>> Thanks for pointing that out too, Dr. Lechter.
> >>
> >> You seem a bit testy, what is the problem?
> >
> > He's debating with the Count and losing miserably.
>
> I don't know that 'losing' is the right word. I'm not trying to pound him
> into the ground, just point out how he uses words in a funny way.
After your initial pot shot, how could I expect anything more from you than
this silly stupid immature bullshit? (Obviously, isolating the sentence I
wrote from the larger context of its paragraph distorts its meaning)
Paul Goodwin
Likely bands you've never heard of. Too musically poor to ever be considered
by the record company suits, by the time they learned to play their
instruments to the point where the suits would have been interested, they
were no longer "true punks"
Case in point were a band in my hometown mid 70's called "The Hype", played
all sorts of outdoor 'bush parties' & even peoples basements, bass player
played everything on one string & the guitar player, such as he was, had
*someone else* tune his strings to make an open chord, all he did was hold
one finger across all the strings. It was entertaining, certainly high
energy, and utterly crap.
I think The Hype could be called "true punk".
John T/CountV
this to say:
> John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
> : On 01-12-20 02.21, David Forbus <for...@ev1.net> thought of this to say:
>
> :> All true Punk music is crap.
>
> : Which was kind of the point. The thing is, just like Prog its rallying cry
> : was "Anything goes!" even if the ways to *do* this 'anything' was markedly
> : different they were both revolts against a narrow-minded and unadventurous
> : mind set.
>
> What is 'true punk music'?
The opposite of Real Prog [TM], I guess.
John T/CountV
this to say:
>> I don't know that 'losing' is the right word. I'm not trying to pound him
>> into the ground, just point out how he uses words in a funny way.
>
> After your initial pot shot, how could I expect anything more from you than
> this silly stupid immature bullshit? (Obviously, isolating the sentence I
> wrote from the larger context of its paragraph distorts its meaning)
Yet in your defense you *did* say that you had your own definition of the
word that did not comply with any of its usual meanings. So, make up your
mind here. What is it: you were misquoted or you use words in non-standard
ways?
I mean, after your explanation of how to use 'progressive', I have to
conclude that my interpretation of whatever you write could be miles off
what you were trying to say. For all I know "silly stupid immature bullshit"
could mean 'delightfully childish' in BaruchSpeak.
I guess the guy who mailed me to warn me that you had no sense of humor was
right as well, come to think of it.
--
Steven Sullivan
: "Steven Sullivan" <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in message
: news:UdeU7.243$k6....@grover.nit.gwu.edu...
:> John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
:> : On 01-12-20 02.21, David Forbus <for...@ev1.net> thought of this to say:
:>
:> :> All true Punk music is crap.
:>
:> : Which was kind of the point. The thing is, just like Prog its rallying
: cry
:> : was "Anything goes!" even if the ways to *do* this 'anything' was
: markedly
:> : different they were both revolts against a narrow-minded and
: unadventurous
:> : mind set.
:>
:>
:> What is 'true punk music'?
:>
: Likely bands you've never heard of. Too musically poor to ever be considered
: by the record company suits, by the time they learned to play their
: instruments to the point where the suits would have been interested, they
: were no longer "true punks"
That's a bullshit category then. Once a band gets signed, it's no longer
'true punk'?
gmelin
Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in article
<CNoU7.253$k6....@grover.nit.gwu.edu>...
That's one possible way to define it, yes.
--
gmelin
Superstition and magic have been so eradicated from our culture that we no
longer know how to deal with them.
-- Michael Palin
John T/CountV
this to say:
> That's a bullshit category then. Once a band gets signed, it's no longer
> 'true punk'?
You'd obviously be surprised by how widely held this belief was (is?) in
Punk circles.
Richard Jay Baruch
--
I love YOU man!
John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
news:B847AFAD.3486A%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
> On 01-12-20 12.59, Richard Jay Baruch <rcke...@optonline.net> thought of
> this to say:
>
> >> I don't know that 'losing' is the right word. I'm not trying to pound
him
> >> into the ground, just point out how he uses words in a funny way.
> >
> > After your initial pot shot, how could I expect anything more from you
than
> > this silly stupid immature bullshit? (Obviously, isolating the sentence
I
> > wrote from the larger context of its paragraph distorts its meaning)
>
> Yet in your defense you *did* say that you had your own definition of the
> word that did not comply with any of its usual meanings. So, make up your
> mind here. What is it: you were misquoted or you use words in non-standard
> ways?
>
> I mean, after your explanation of how to use 'progressive', I have to
> conclude that my interpretation of whatever you write could be miles off
> what you were trying to say. For all I know "silly stupid immature
bullshit"
> could mean 'delightfully childish' in BaruchSpeak.
>
> I guess the guy who mailed me to warn me that you had no sense of humor
was
> right as well, come to think of it.
Break open the beers. You wore me down. (LOL)
Theus
> On 01-12-20 17.59, Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> thought
of
> this to say:
>
> > That's a bullshit category then. Once a band gets signed, it's no longer
> > 'true punk'?
>
> You'd obviously be surprised by how widely held this belief was (is?) in
> Punk circles.
>
John T/CountV
> "John T/CountV" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
> news:B8483D86.348E7%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
>> On 01-12-20 17.59, Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> thought
> of
>> this to say:
>>
>>> That's a bullshit category then. Once a band gets signed, it's no longer
>>> 'true punk'?
>>
>> You'd obviously be surprised by how widely held this belief was (is?) in
>> Punk circles.
>>
> Would that be a major label signing or an independent label?
Any, really. Obviously, starting your own is still fairly OK.
Steven Sullivan
: On 01-12-20 17.59, Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> thought of
: this to say:
:> That's a bullshit category then. Once a band gets signed, it's no longer
:> 'true punk'?
: You'd obviously be surprised by how widely held this belief was (is?) in
: Punk circles.
I thought it was, once you have a *hit* you're no longer punk?
(or, slightly more stringently, once you sign to a *major label*, you
ain't punk)
Chet Klock
Steven Gross
"John T/CountV" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message > I mean,
after your explanation of how to use 'progressive', I have to
> conclude that my interpretation of whatever you write could be miles off
> what you were trying to say. For all I know "silly stupid immature
bullshit"
> could mean 'delightfully childish' in BaruchSpeak.
....I was driving home from work today and I started cracking up thinking
about that sig and now this. You're killing me.
Steven Gross
Jackson's more recent work Symphony 1. This is quite good. There is some
flute, viola, and violins but they are not that dominant. It certainly
doesn't sound anything like a symphony in that respect. I liked Will Power
but I think this CD is a lot better. This is a 1999 release. Will Power
has much more orchestra on it than this.
Steven Gross
"David Rheault" <drhe...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9vqq8b$2rd$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "Steven Gross" <dian...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:mLUT7.231363$3d2.11...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > >Very
> > > > early Joe Jackson had a slight punk feel to it. I've always loved
> him.
> > > > He's made some very sophisticated music over the years.
> > >
> > > How was his symphonic album?
> > >
> > It's quite good and contrary to what people may think there is no
> orchestra.
>
>
> How did it get the "symphonic" designation then?
>
rather than Will Power.
There is some flute, acoustic violin and viola. I guess I exaggerated a
little. However it is not that dominant. It certainly sounds nothing like
a symphony. The big orchestra feel or even the quartet feel is not there.
You have some jazz personnel on this album. Wessell Anderson on alto sax,
Terence Blanchard on trumpet, and Robin Eubanks on Trombone. You also have
Steve Vai on electric guitar. Once again Joe Jackson mixes jazz with
classical.music. The piece is divided like a symphony into movements. He
calls them first, fast, slow and last movements. Joe Jackson as usual plays
keyboards.
This is how Joe describes the album. "It grew from a handful of ideas- for
instance, that on the eve of the 21st century, a piece which was symphonic
in structure surely didn't have to be written for a 19th century orchestra
to qualify as a symphony." These notes and others appear on the liner notes
of the CD. Figures Joe would try to put his own spin on a symphony. I'll
never forget when he made that 3 sided record and side 4 had no music on it.
He loves to do what's not typical. It's definitely worth getting IMO. If
you're a Joe Jackson fan it's a must.
John T/CountV
this to say:
> John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
> : On 01-12-20 17.59, Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> thought of
> : this to say:
>
> :> That's a bullshit category then. Once a band gets signed, it's no longer
> :> 'true punk'?
>
> : You'd obviously be surprised by how widely held this belief was (is?) in
> : Punk circles.
>
> I thought it was, once you have a *hit* you're no longer punk?
>
> (or, slightly more stringently, once you sign to a *major label*, you
> ain't punk)
A matter of degrees, surely.
Hell, I'm sure you can find people who seriously espouse that once you've
played a gig you're not really Punk any more.
--
CountV/John T
"You can say whatever bad things you want about a life of sin, but it's
highly educational" - Hjalmar Bergman
John T/CountV
to say:
> "John T/CountV" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
LOL Thanks, Steve. I'm hoping that whoever it was (the name now eludes me
completely) that was complaining a few months ago about me being just cranky
and not the slightest bit funny any more feels the same way.
Truth is that things are looking up on every front (bar the visa one, which
is still too convoluted to call except for final outcome), so I'm probably
less cranky all round.
--
CountV/John T
"You can say whatever bad things you want about a life of sin, but it's
highly educational" - Hjalmar Bergman
John T/CountV
to say:
> ....Will Power certainly has tons of orchestra but I was referring to Joe
> Jackson's more recent work Symphony 1. This is quite good. There is some
> flute, viola, and violins but they are not that dominant. It certainly
> doesn't sound anything like a symphony in that respect. I liked Will Power
> but I think this CD is a lot better. This is a 1999 release. Will Power
> has much more orchestra on it than this.
Gotcha - might be worth checking out, then.
--
CountV/John T
"You can say whatever bad things you want about a life of sin, but it's
highly educational" - Hjalmar Bergman
Steven Sullivan
: On 01-12-21 04.08, Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> thought of
: this to say:
:> John T/CountV <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
:> : On 01-12-20 17.59, Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> thought of
:> : this to say:
:>
:> :> That's a bullshit category then. Once a band gets signed, it's no longer
:> :> 'true punk'?
:>
:> : You'd obviously be surprised by how widely held this belief was (is?) in
:> : Punk circles.
:>
:> I thought it was, once you have a *hit* you're no longer punk?
:>
:> (or, slightly more stringently, once you sign to a *major label*, you
:> ain't punk)
: A matter of degrees, surely.
Stop calling me shirley.
: Hell, I'm sure you can find people who seriously espouse that once you've
: played a gig you're not really Punk any more.
*punkfans*
Henry Potts
>Captain Beyond <purpl...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>:>Yes, ELP & Pink Floyd were the top Prog bands of the era.
>:
>: I'd probably add Genesis in there too IMHO.
>
>Except Genesis weren't hugely popular, the way the other three were, until
>the 1980s.
That's true to an extent. Genesis were late starters in terms of
commercial success and were much bigger in the 1980s, but _Selling
England by the Pound_ still made #3 in the UK back in 1973, a peak
equalled by _ATotT_ and _&TTW3_ before _Duke_ was their first #1 album
in 1980.
--
Henry
Steven Sullivan
: Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote
Again, I'm taking a American success as the benchmark of 'huge
popularity'. Genesis did the same, btw.
Chet Klock
glamorized by the press...and still isn't.
MTV eventually destroyed the progressive rock movement; we hadn't
planned on watching tv amateur acts 24/7. It's like watching the
smothers bros. on tv one year (70's), they get canned, and the next year
we get the fonz & opie, and the fricking 50's again. The Media doesn't
like progressive rock, .........that's how you know it's special.
David Forbus
They don't have any real musical talent and are jealous of those that
do. That is why Progressive rock is looked down on and the Punk
Rock scene was so loved by these hacks.
DLF
Chet Klock wrote:
--
_________________________________________________
ARARAT Productions for...@ev1.net
3D computer animation / video & audio production
http://www.ararat-productions.com/
Paul Goodwin
"David Forbus" <for...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3C3159CD...@ev1.net...
> I think the music industry is full of people who are frustrated musicians.
> They don't have any real musical talent and are jealous of those that
> do. That is why Progressive rock is looked down on and the Punk
> Rock scene was so loved by these hacks.
>
I think closer to the truth is the music industry is full of those who have
nothing whatsoever to do with *music*.
Paul
Theus
news:a0rv8g$mndgk$1...@ID-46095.news.dfncis.de...
industry today.
Henry Potts
>I think the music industry is full of people who are frustrated musicians.
>They don't have any real musical talent and are jealous of those that
>do. That is why Progressive rock is looked down on and the Punk
>Rock scene was so loved by these hacks.
I think the music industry is full of people who love music and want to
make music available to the masses. That does not explain why conspiracy
theories are so loved by Yes fans.
--
Henry
NP: R a d i u s , _ C i v i l i z a t i o n s _
John T/CountV
> I think the music industry is full of people who are frustrated musicians.
> They don't have any real musical talent and are jealous of those that
> do. That is why Progressive rock is looked down on and the Punk
> Rock scene was so loved by these hacks.
>
> DLF
>
> Chet Klock wrote:
>
>> Prog was definately in style at the concert halls, but was never
>> glamorized by the press...and still isn't.
>> MTV eventually destroyed the progressive rock movement; we hadn't
>> planned on watching tv amateur acts 24/7. It's like watching the
>> smothers bros. on tv one year (70's), they get canned, and the next year
>> we get the fonz & opie, and the fricking 50's again. The Media doesn't
>> like progressive rock, .........that's how you know it's special.
Clueless and cluelesser.
Jeremy S.
The music industry is just that: an industry. For every musician there's
dozens of others that work behind the scenes for or against that
musician: lawyers, stock analyzers, clerks, etc.
Many of the independent labels are praised because they do more making
music than drowning the artist in business-type bureaucracy. As soon as
business comes into art, problems will ensue.
--Jeremy
David Forbus
critics and others who have some way of expressing their opinion
publicly. Many behind the scene people are neutral as far as the
music content is concerned. I was speaking of people who have
and express opinions about what is "good" or "bad" music.
DLF
"Jeremy S." wrote:
--